Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)

Order Date: 06 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: CE Info System Pvt. Ltd (corporate entity) and its senior officers – Director Rohan Verma, Vice President Sonam Rawat, Associate Vice President Jitendra Kumar.
  • Opposite Party: Proprietor of M/s Euro II Services, engaged in automobile accessories since 2015.
  • Underlying commercial dispute: Orders placed in 2017 for GPS tracking and automobile products (A04041‑VT Rover Lite, value Rs. 4,10,000) and later for product A04082‑VT15‑AIS140‑PB1 (value Rs. 5,70,825). Defective/non‑viable goods reported during FY 2018‑19; advance payment of Rs. 60,000 by cheque No. 043069 dated 30‑11‑2019 not refunded; replacement not effected despite reminder dated 27‑10‑2020.
  • Settlement Agreement dated 29‑12‑2018 had resolved earlier disputes but was omitted from complaint.
  • Complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore; registered as C. Case No. 666 of 2021, alleging offences under IPC Sections 420, 406, 506, claiming loss of Rs. 10,54,625.
  • Magistrate ordered police inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.; report dated 17‑08‑2022; on 18‑08‑2022 took cognizance and issued summons to petitioners under the three IPC sections.

Petitioner's Submissions

  • Argued dispute is purely civil, no fraudulent inducement at contract inception; complaint contains generic allegations without specific acts by individual officers.
  • Highlighted absence of any basis for Section 506 (criminal intimidation) and lack of vicarious liability under IPC.
  • Cited Supreme Court precedent V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat (2009) that civil breach cannot be converted to criminal charge without proof of cheating ab initio.
  • Emphasised that the inquiry report was a bare jurisdictional note lacking witness testimony.

Court's Analysis

1. Civil contractual breach cannot be treated as criminal offence unless ingredients of cheating (fraudulent intent at the time of contract) are established – not present here.

2. IPC does not impose vicarious liability on directors/officers absent specific allegations of personal participation; therefore prosecution of Rohan Verma, Sonam Rawat, Jitendra Kumar is untenable.

3. Magistrate’s issuance of process was mechanical; inquiry report failed to verify substantive facts, and summons under Section 506 lacked factual foundation.

Final Outcome

  • The revision application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
  • Criminal proceedings in C. Case No. 666 of 2021 (Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC) are quashed and set aside.
  • All process orders against CE Info System Ltd and its officers are vacated.
  • Connected interim applications (CRAN 1 of 2023 and CRAN 2 of 2024) are disposed of; any interim order stands vacated.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Judgment to be transmitted to the Trial Court for compliance; case diary to be returned to counsel; certified copy to be supplied upon request.

Topics: Court Proceedings, Commercial Contract Dispute, Criminal Procedure